Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii vs M/S.Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd on 27 July, 2021
T.C.A.No.570 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 27.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
T.C.A.No.570 of 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax - II
121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd.,
50-55 & 58, Vanagaram Road,
Ayanambakkam, Chennai – 600 095. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, "B"
Bench, dated 13.02.2015 in I.TA.No.366/Mds/2014 for the Assessment
Year 2007-08.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/5
T.C.A.No.570 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Ms.Sriniranjani Srinivasan,
learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order
dated 13.02.2015 made in I.TA.No.366/Mds/2014 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08.
3.The above Tax Case Appeal was admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:
“1)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was
right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) who deleted the penalty levied
u/s 271 AA, when the assessee had not maintained
the documents relating to international transactions
as per the requirement of Section 92D of the Income
Tax Act?
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/5
T.C.A.No.570 of 2016
2)Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was
right in holding that no penalty u/s 271 AA could be
levied merely because the transfer pricing officer had
not made any adjustments in respect of international
transactions?”
4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits
that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the
Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued
by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary
limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been
increased to Rs.1 crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this
case is less than the threshold limit.
5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeal
is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The
substantial questions of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect
in this case is above the threshold limit fixed in the said Circular,
liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to
restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/5
T.C.A.No.570 of 2016
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
Internet : Yes 27.07.2021
va
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B" Bench
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/5
T.C.A.No.570 of 2016
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R.HEMALATHA, J.
va
T.C.A.No.570 of 2016
27.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/5
